The WoodenBoat Forum is sponsored by WoodenBoat Publications, publisher of WoodenBoat magazine. The Forum is a free service, and much like the "free" content on Public Radio, we hope you will support WoodenBoat by subscribing to this fabulous magazine. To get WoodenBoat delivered to your door or computer, mobile device of choice, etc, click WB Subscriptions.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You'll find answers to the frequently asked questions as well as basic rules. No need to register unless you would like to participate, although some images will only show if you are registered/logged-in.

You will need to register
before you can post: click the red register link or the register tab, above, right.

Selling/self promotion postings are verboten on the Forum. To advertise, take a look at WoodenBoat Advertising, or use your Google Adwords account if you want to advertise on the Forum.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

I think I will repeat what I put in "The Results" thread..
The USA is doomed as a Nation if they won't even spend time considering changes to the 2nd Amendment.

I watched the Election results here last night and took note of something!!!
Remember the Mass Shooting at a College campus ( I think it was last year) where huge numbers of students marched.
They were carrying placards that said "I'm 18 and I vote".
In last nights coverage, it was clearly shown that only 13%...(THIRTEEN PERCENT) of registered voters aged 18-25 voted.
What happened to the other 87%...couldn't be bothered to get off there A** and go out and do their democratic duty and vote.
I think it was Jefferson??? who said "You have your Republic if you can keep it".
The next time there is a mass shooting at a College Campus, and there will be....
All your young folk need to look in the mirror and know that is the person to blame.
They had the chance to vote for the change they marched for....and DIDN'T do it.
Gun control changes.....it'll never happen!!!

Re: Another multiple shooting today

From the Federalist (NRA): "
Private ownership of machine guns made after 1986 is banned by federal law. All pre-1986 automatic weapons must be registered with the ATF and require extensive background checks before private citizens may own them."

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Ralphie Boy

From the Federalist (NRA): "
Private ownership of machine guns made after 1986 is banned by federal law. All pre-1986 automatic weapons must be registered with the ATF and require extensive background checks before private citizens may own them."

Re: Another multiple shooting today

"The process of registering a NFA item with the ATF is costly, invasive, and time-consuming. Federal law requires extensive background checks of anyone wishing to own a NFA item such as a machine gun. If you wanted to purchase a machine gun today, it would take close to a year, and you would be required to submit fingerprints and a photo to accompany your background check. Each NFA item also requires its own tax stamp, which costs $200. Once the ATF decides that an individual is permitted by law to own a NFA item, it adds that individual’s name, address, and biographical information to a federal gun registry and matches it to the serial number of the licensed NFA item. This goes for every item listed in the NFA, not just machine guns. Individuals with NFA items are then required to notify the ATF when they move and any time they plan to travel outside their state of residence with the NFA item."

Re: Another multiple shooting today

I'm not sure what Canadian Gun laws have to do with this discussion. But fingerprints, background check, 1 year waiting period, that doesn't sound easy compared to just buying a Glock, does it? Perhaps that, and the outrageous cost of the weapons is why so few are owned here in the USA. Like I said before, if we had a similar process for all gun purchases we would all be better off. You can dream about owning an Uzi all you want, but that doesn't make your point, sorry.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

If you take away all guns, the murder count via other methids will go up. What will your solution to knives, bombs, poison, vehicles, drowning, strangulation, claw hammers, be?

ive seen this argument before, and it's ridiculous.

The argument is the same as someone telling you not to lock your car door because a thief can just break the window.
Do you lock your car (or your house), Sleek? Yes? I'll tell you why, because it MAKES IT HARDER for someone two break in. Note: it doesn't make it impossible, that is never going to happen.

Q: Should we make it harder or easier for someone to kill lots of people very quickly? I'm saying lets get rid of semi-automatic firearms with large detachable magazines which can kill lots of people very quickly ( let's make killing harder).

Could someone choose another method? Sure, but most other methods are harder and/or you can't kill as many people as quickly.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Robbie 2

I think I will repeat what I put in "The Results" thread..
The USA is doomed as a Nation if they won't even spend time considering changes to the 2nd Amendment.

I watched the Election results here last night and took note of something!!!
Remember the Mass Shooting at a College campus ( I think it was last year) where huge numbers of students marched.
They were carrying placards that said "I'm 18 and I vote".
In last nights coverage, it was clearly shown that only 13%...(THIRTEEN PERCENT) of registered voters aged 18-25 voted.
What happened to the other 87%...couldn't be bothered to get off there A** and go out and do their democratic duty and vote.
I think it was Jefferson??? who said "You have your Republic if you can keep it".
The next time there is a mass shooting at a College Campus, and there will be....
All your young folk need to look in the mirror and know that is the person to blame.
They had the chance to vote for the change they marched for....and DIDN'T do it.
Gun control changes.....it'll never happen!!!

according to US News and World Report, the turnout for voters 18-29 was 31%, not 13%... Significantly higher than the previous midterm election. Young voters voted overwhelmingly (about 2/3rds of them) for Democrats and made the difference in many close elections. The Republicans picked up voters over 45. This should worry Republicans.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

So you guys are familiar with the specifics of all of the mass shooting this year? You know the names of all the perpetrators from the over-reporting? I highly doubt it. In fact the reporting of it is probably way down from what it was. We know a few names of perpetrators of the very worst events but I'd bet most people can't name the synagogue shooter, or the temple shooter, or the church shooter in texas. I can't name the vegas shooter.

I suppose if we don't know it's happening the calls for gun control would be lower, but that's the outcome some want anyway.

These stories are news for a very short cycle at this point. They are commonplace and in reality hardly get reported when the severity of the crime is considered.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson

So you guys are familiar with the specifics of all of the mass shooting this year? You know the names of all the perpetrators from the over-reporting? I highly doubt it. In fact the reporting of it is probably way down from what it was. We know a few names of perpetrators of the very worst events but I'd bet most people can't name the synagogue shooter, or the temple shooter, or the church shooter in texas. I can't name the vegas shooter.

I suppose if we don't know it's happening the calls for gun control would be lower, but that's the outcome some want anyway.

These stories are news for a very short cycle at this point. They are commonplace and in reality hardly get reported when the severity of the crime is considered.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Bob Adams

Don't know most of them now, but sure as hell did for a few weeks .

It hasn't been a few weeks and I'd bet most people cannot name the synagogue shooter, the california shooter or the yoga studio shooter. I'd be very surprised if you could name them without looking up at least one, and these are recent stories. I can't remember the guys name in vegas. Silencing the media is a cop out.

Hell, they are so commonplace now it was hard to remember what the three more widely reported recent ones were.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson

It hasn't been a few weeks and I'd bet most people cannot name the synagogue shooter, the california shooter or the yoga studio shooter. I'd be very surprised if you could name them without looking up at least one, and these are recent stories. I can't remember the guys name in vegas. Silencing the media is a cop out.

Hell, they are so commonplace now it was hard to remember what the three more widely reported recent ones were.

OK, we can agree to disagree. How about the copycat factor? Please keep in mind I already stated it cannot happen due to the 1st. Guns in the United States are not going to disappear. Doesn't it make sense then to discuss anything that might help reduce the tragedies?

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Ralphie Boy

I'm not sure what Canadian Gun laws have to do with this discussion. But fingerprints, background check, 1 year waiting period, that doesn't sound easy compared to just buying a Glock, does it? Perhaps that, and the outrageous cost of the weapons is why so few are owned here in the USA. Like I said before, if we had a similar process for all gun purchases we would all be better off. You can dream about owning an Uzi all you want, but that doesn't make your point, sorry.

There are approximately 400000 full auto weapons in private hands in your country. If you can't make a connection between full-auto ownership and mass shootings, that's just fine. No-one else can either. Sorry that doesn't follow the script of your initial argument about how ownership of them would cause mayhem, and thank god they were illegal. Feel free to speculate on reasons why that doesn't happen in a field with which you obviously have no experience, knowledge, or interest.

Canadian gun laws are quite pertinent in several ways. Since you can't do your own research, I'll spell it out for you:

Hand guns here are more tightly controlled than anything you have in your country, including full-auto, and yet hand guns are quite common on the streets in the hands of criminals. Tight laws keep guns away from law abiding people such as myself, but not from criminals. Yet you think that regulations will somehow keep them out of the hands of criminals in your country?

The long gun registry in this country was an attempt to get citizens to register pre-existing rifles. It failed abysmally because only something like 40% of rifles were registered. That's in a country well known for being friendly and rule-following. There are many handguns that also were never registered back when those regulations came in. I also know of several full autos.

There are approximately 400 million guns in your country already. They already exist. If any kind of a registration for pre-existing guns is brought in in, I would expect lower rates of compliance than in Canada. But even if the same, that's 240 million guns that remain unregistered and underground. And nothing changes.

Address the root causes of the violence, not the tool used, or nothing changes.
Why is your citizenry so violent? Why is ours not?

But it's easy to say gun control will fix everything. It's a simple answer to a complex problem. It's like buying carbon credits for a flight to China, or thinking that putting out recycling is fixing climate change. It's a Pablum solution. Makes you feel good.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson

It hasn't been a few weeks and I'd bet most people cannot name the synagogue shooter, the california shooter or the yoga studio shooter. I'd be very surprised if you could name them without looking up at least one, and these are recent stories. I can't remember the guys name in vegas. Silencing the media is a cop out.

Hell, they are so commonplace now it was hard to remember what the three more widely reported recent ones were.

Its not strictly speaking the news sources only that are the problem. Google any mass shooting and you will find the shooters name. That's the permanent fame they want. They should never be named publicly.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Is this tragic or what? Lightning never strikes twice - hah!

A man who survived a mass shooting in Las Vegas last year was among those killed in Wednesday's attack in California, his family says.
Telemachus Orfanos, 27, died alongside 11 others when a man opened fire at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, north-west of Los Angeles.

He escaped death last year when a gunman killed 58 people in Las Vegas.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by skuthorp

Remember the victims…….

i'm not big on police, but this gentleman's death did affect me yesterday more than i ussually get worked up by a mass shooting

29 year veteran Sheriff's Sgt. Ron Helus. Set to retire soon, was on the phone with his wife when he heard the radio call. Told he loved her and would call her back soon. Shot multiple times as he entered the building.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Decourcy

There are approximately 400000 full auto weapons in private hands in your country. If you can't make a connection between full-auto ownership and mass shootings, that's just fine. No-one else can either. Sorry that doesn't follow the script of your initial argument about how ownership of them would cause mayhem, and thank god they were illegal. Feel free to speculate on reasons why that doesn't happen in a field with which you obviously have no experience, knowledge, or interest.

Canadian gun laws are quite pertinent in several ways. Since you can't do your own research, I'll spell it out for you:

Hand guns here are more tightly controlled than anything you have in your country, including full-auto, and yet hand guns are quite common on the streets in the hands of criminals. Tight laws keep guns away from law abiding people such as myself, but not from criminals. Yet you think that regulations will somehow keep them out of the hands of criminals in your country?

The long gun registry in this country was an attempt to get citizens to register pre-existing rifles. It failed abysmally because only something like 40% of rifles were registered. That's in a country well known for being friendly and rule-following. There are many handguns that also were never registered back when those regulations came in. I also know of several full autos.

There are approximately 400 million guns in your country already. They already exist. If any kind of a registration for pre-existing guns is brought in in, I would expect lower rates of compliance than in Canada. But even if the same, that's 240 million guns that remain unregistered and underground. And nothing changes.

Address the root causes of the violence, not the tool used, or nothing changes.
Why is your citizenry so violent? Why is ours not?

But it's easy to say gun control will fix everything. It's a simple answer to a complex problem. It's like buying carbon credits for a flight to China, or thinking that putting out recycling is fixing climate change. It's a Pablum solution. Makes you feel good.

Thanks for the reply. While you are correct in stating that Fully Automatic weapons are technically legal in America, the fact that they are so difficult and expensive to obtain explains why more people don't own them. You tried to make it sound like they are easy to get: they are not.

Remember when Everyone was rushing to buy Bump Stocks before they became illegal? If if was easy, those buyers would prefer the real thing, right? You said yourself-that you dream about them! So the fact that they are so tingly controlled is a good thing; IMHO.

400,000 autos may seem like a lot buts that's just .01% of all guns, and more importantly, they are in the hands of people who have passed an extensive background check. Maybe we should do this for all guns, eh?

You state that your country's gun registration progrAm was a failure since only 40% of rifles were registered, but that's better than 0%. I'm sure the numbers of weapons and the restrictions in your country are one reason you have less gun deaths. Isn't that a good thing?

BTW, I never said that tighter gun laws is the only way to solve this problem, but it has to be part of the solution. I think you know that, deep down, but perhaps this topic is too emotional for you.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Ralphie Boy

Thanks for the reply. While you are correct in stating that Fully Automatic weapons are technically legal in America, the fact that they are so difficult and expensive to obtain explains why more people don't own them. You tried to make it sound like they are easy to get: they are not.

Remember when Everyone was rushing to buy Bump Stocks before they became illegal? If if was easy, those buyers would prefer the real thing, right? You said yourself-that you dream about them! So the fact that they are so tingly controlled is a good thing; IMHO.

400,000 autos may seem like a lot buts that's just .01% of all guns, and more importantly, they are in the hands of people who have passed an extensive background check. Maybe we should do this for all guns, eh?

You state that your country's gun registration progrAm was a failure since only 40% of rifles were registered, but that's better than 0%. I'm sure the numbers of weapons and the restrictions in your country are one reason you have less gun deaths. Isn't that a good thing?

BTW, I never said that tighter gun laws is the only way to solve this problem, but it has to be part of the solution. I think you know that, deep down, but perhaps this topic is too emotional for you.

Not an emotional subject for me because it's not my neighbours and friends getting killed. It's up to your citizens to decide if they actually want to address the problems.

1) that's one full auto per 900 citizens as an average. Why doesn't one of these people go off the rails after they aquire one? Think hard on that. If these people are that safe, are you fine with a fairly simple background check and process allowing ownership of unlimited types of weapons?
2)40% compliance was enough of a failure for the government to pull the plug on it.
3) we've always had a lower rate of violence here. Culturally, it's not celebrated as a means of solving conflict. No gun registration or ban has had any measurable effect on levels of violence in my country (or any that brought in controls or bans actually). Believing it will magically solve yours is quite a leap of faith.

4) what other solutions do you have?

As an aside, I've allowed the tone between us to get a bit snarky. That is partially a function of the screen separation between us, and my natural word choices. For my part in any perceived insulting language, I apologize.

The fact is that no-one is pro death. It's a matter of differences of opinion as to effective means of controlling violence.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by BrianY

according to US News and World Report, the turnout for voters 18-29 was 31%, not 13%... Significantly higher than the previous midterm election. Young voters voted overwhelmingly (about 2/3rds of them) for Democrats and made the difference in many close elections. The Republicans picked up voters over 45. This should worry Republicans.

The Election results show I was watching was a Talkfest hosted by George Stephanopolus...I think that is his name.
If the quoted percentage figure is wrong, I apologise but that was the percentage shown.
I really wish all the best to all you USA citizens and hope that one day you can truly live without fear.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Not an emotional subject for me because it's not my neighbours and friends getting killed. It's up to your citizens to decide if they actually want to address the problems.

1) that's one full auto per 900 citizens as an average. Why doesn't one of these people go off the rails after they aquire one? Think hard on that. If these people are that safe, are you fine with a fairly simple background check and process allowing ownership of unlimited types of weapons?
2)40% compliance was enough of a failure for the government to pull the plug on it.
3) we've always had a lower rate of violence here. Culturally, it's not celebrated as a means of solving conflict. No gun registration or ban has had any measurable effect on levels of violence in my country (or any that brought in controls or bans actually). Believing it will magically solve yours is quite a leap of faith.

4) what other solutions do you have?

As an aside, I've allowed the tone between us to get a bit snarky. That is partially a function of the screen separation between us, and my natural word choices. For my part in any perceived insulting language, I apologize.

The fact is that no-one is pro death. It's a matter of differences of opinion as to effective means of controlling violence.

thanks for the thoughtful reply, no apology necessary.

1). Are you suggesting that owning a machine gun somehow turns a person into a pacifist? Come on! Perhaps the background checks might actually work by keeping these weapons out of the hands of those most likely to commit crimes? I would feel a lot better if the same process that is used for automatic weapon registration was used for all guns, yes. It appears we might agree on this. Great!

2) not sure why Canada gave up on the registration program. I think if the penalty for non-compliance was high enough that most would comply. Not the crooks, but that goes without saying.

3). I'll take your word for it that Canadians are less violent than Americans. If we are that different, then obviously a different approach to the problem is indicated, correct? IE: Using Canada as an example re guns laws may not have a lot utility.

You say that "no gun registration or ban has had any measurable effect on the levels of violence in any country....", this is really hard to believe. Do you have any source for such an assertion? Maybe the level of violence stays the same but the number of dead and maimed is drastically reduced? That makes more sense, as it is a lot harder to kill lots of people without a gun. you have to really work at it, and most people are lazy. Also, I have never heard that statement amongst all the Gun Lobby's arguments. If it was true I would imagine we would hear this every time any gun legislation is proposed.

I don't believe that tighter gun laws will magically end all our mass shootings, but I believe it could help, a lot.
Why? Let's take the latest example of gun carnage, in Thousand Oaks (and I'd like you to think hard on this please). The shooter apparently had a 45 caliber Glock with an extended magazine. The paper I read say that a standard Glock has a 10 round clip with 1 available in the chamber (I've never fired a Glock, so I'm going by what was printed). That's 11 possible dead bodies that this guy could create in a matter of seconds in a crowded place like that bar. Of course he had an extended magazine, which has even more bullets. Now if he has several magazines in his back pocket we multiply the carnage by 2, 3 or whatever. Now here's the crux of the issue: the gun (and presumably the magazine as well) was legally obtained. Yes, in fact for most of these types of shootings it seems the weapons were absolutely legal. Now imagine if the only handgun the shooter could legally obtain was a single shot pistol. We would not have seen 12 dead that night, and you can't deny this. Even if we allow for a 3 shot semi-auto or six shot revolver, the number of deaths would have been greatly reduced. So how can you say that stricter gun laws wouldn't have helped? If the type of gun that could be legally obtained had less firepower = then less death and destruction would result.

Call me crazy, but I think that the legally obtainable guns today have way way too much firepower.

What would common sense gun laws look like? How about this: You want to target shoot, hunt, fine - here's a single shot pistol or long rifle. For some types of hunting maybe a 3 round (or so) magazine would be Allowed. If you need a gun for safety, due to your job or environment, you Could perhaps be allowed more firepower, if you pass the certification process (background check, training, liability insurance, etc.). This would limit the amount of damage that the average person could inflict with their legally obtained firearms.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Originally Posted by Ralphie Boy

thanks for the thoughtful reply, no apology necessary.

1). Are you suggesting that owning a machine gun somehow turns a person into a pacifist? Come on! Perhaps the background checks might actually work by keeping these weapons out of the hands of those most likely to commit crimes? I would feel a lot better if the same process that is used for automatic weapon registration was used for all guns, yes. It appears we might agree on this. Great!

2) not sure why Canada gave up on the registration program. I think if the penalty for non-compliance was high enough that most would comply. Not the crooks, but that goes without saying.

3). I'll take your word for it that Canadians are less violent than Americans. If we are that different, then obviously a different approach to the problem is indicated, correct? IE: Using Canada as an example re guns laws may not have a lot utility.

You say that "no gun registration or ban has had any measurable effect on the levels of violence in any country....", this is really hard to believe. Do you have any source for such an assertion? Maybe the level of violence stays the same but the number of dead and maimed is drastically reduced? That makes more sense, as it is a lot harder to kill lots of people without a gun. you have to really work at it, and most people are lazy. Also, I have never heard that statement amongst all the Gun Lobby's arguments. If it was true I would imagine we would hear this every time any gun legislation is proposed.

I don't believe that tighter gun laws will magically end all our mass shootings, but I believe it could help, a lot.
Why? Let's take the latest example of gun carnage, in Thousand Oaks (and I'd like you to think hard on this please). The shooter apparently had a 45 caliber Glock with an extended magazine. The paper I read say that a standard Glock has a 10 round clip with 1 available in the chamber (I've never fired a Glock, so I'm going by what was printed). That's 11 possible dead bodies that this guy could create in a matter of seconds in a crowded place like that bar. Of course he had an extended magazine, which has even more bullets. Now if he has several magazines in his back pocket we multiply the carnage by 2, 3 or whatever. Now here's the crux of the issue: the gun (and presumably the magazine as well) was legally obtained. Yes, in fact for most of these types of shootings it seems the weapons were absolutely legal. Now imagine if the only handgun the shooter could legally obtain was a single shot pistol. We would not have seen 12 dead that night, and you can't deny this. Even if we allow for a 3 shot semi-auto or six shot revolver, the number of deaths would have been greatly reduced. So how can you say that stricter gun laws wouldn't have helped? If the type of gun that could be legally obtained had less firepower = then less death and destruction would result.

Call me crazy, but I think that the legally obtainable guns today have way way too much firepower.

What would common sense gun laws look like? How about this: You want to target shoot, hunt, fine - here's a single shot pistol or long rifle. For some types of hunting maybe a 3 round (or so) magazine would be Allowed. If you need a gun for safety, due to your job or environment, you Could perhaps be allowed more firepower, if you pass the certification process (background check, training, liability insurance, etc.). This would limit the amount of damage that the average person could inflict with their legally obtained firearms.

Respectfully,
Ralphie

Hi Ralphie.
1) not at all. What I'm saying is that those people who are willing to jump through legal hoops are those least likely to commit gun crimes. They are the ones who will follow the rules. You won't catch potential or present criminals by having rules on ownership, when there are 400000000 guns floating around already. The law abiding will follow new rules when buying existing or new, the criminals will no more follow new rules than present rules. And there are hundreds of millions of guns that will not be "on the radar".
2) the government gave up because even with threats of stiff fines and even jail time, gun owners here knew that targeting us would not affect street crime, and we did not comply. It was a bad law. If it could have been demonstrated in any way that it would help, we would have complied.
3)no need to take my word, just look at the stats. And when doing so, consider that we are the same people. Most of us have relations on both sides of the border not far back in our history. Most of us live within 200 miles of our border. And yet less violence. Why? I would argue that we take pride in being generally non violent, in the same way as the French pride themselves as lovers and the British take pride in their "stiff upper lip". We as cultures choose the narrative that we define ourselves by. In my eyes, your country has chosen a sick narrative. Taking pride in Jesse James, Billy the kid, criminals of the '20's, and "Indian killers" like many of your heroes of the old west is sick. Having Hollywood pump out one "shoot em up" after another is sick. Grand theft auto is sick.

As to the argument that gun laws don't affect crime rates not being brought forward by the gun lobby, you can't be looking hard. Let's look at Britain where Dunblane brought about radically tough laws. Before Dunblane there were very few shootings. After Dunblane there are very few shootings. That's not because there are less guns in legal hands (criminals don't hand in guns), but because Britain has always had a low violent crime rate (with, of course, the blips of terrorist activity). In Canada, the government is considering a total ban on handguns to try to reduce street crime. Can you tell me how my handing in my guns would prevent the crimes of a street crook that is already breaking laws by having his gun?

As to the Thousand Oaks shooting and Glocks:
-the standard (not extended) magazine for that particular model is 13, with one in the chamber making 14. California limits capacity to 10, as does Canada. That's just for information. If you have little firearms experience, you really should go to a range and shoot a variety of guns to gain understanding.
-if you want to limit gun ownership to single shot, you are talking about gun bans, not controls. How are you going to collect the 400 million already out there? What we have in Canada is gun control (with few actually fully banned, but most with greater or lessor degrees of availability). Our laws are considered oppressive by most gun enthusiasts in your country. There is no way you will achieve more restrictions than we have here, and to dream about having them is a fantasy. And if by some miracle you had political will to do so anyways, you would not have compliance.
but even if you did, how would you prevent the next shooter from using a shotgun, which is a far more lethal weapon.

And the next shooter would come along, because nothing changed culturally.

Re: Another multiple shooting today

Feel free to speculate on reasons why that doesn't happen in a field with which you obviously have no experience, knowledge, or interest...... Since you can't do your own research,

In a recent thread, I mentioned that someone with a PhD in neuroscience disagreed with your beliefs about human brains. Your response was an arrogant insult to them.

It is ridiculously hypocritical that you can insult the knowledge of someone with many years of rigorous scientific training, including obtaining a PhD through top universities in two countries, and then insult the knowledge of someone on another thread because you reckon they lack experience, knowledge and interest.

A reasonable person either acknowledges research, knowledge and experience or doesn't. You rejected the experience, knowledge and research of someone with a PhD when it suited you, and now you are claiming to know more because of your own experience, knowledge and interest when it suits your purposes. That is illogical, hypocritical and just plain silly.

You can't have it both ways. Either those with more experience and knowledge have the upper hand, or they don't.